TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

Recommended Posts

the admiral    10,235

No, I meant the 123 "big four" teams. Thunder probably comes in at #123, you're right. The Clippers' only saving grace is that the name "Los Angeles Clippers" isn't completely terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,591
2 hours ago, the admiral said:

Do they plan to die? Because that's what a hyphenated pair of years looks like to me.

Montreal Expos 2.0 confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZipperClub    39
On 9/11/2017 at 1:24 PM, WSU151 said:

 

Yeah...maybe I'm out of touch on this, but I had no idea they were in the ski goggle business.  Seems like a couple years ago it was BYOG...then New Era said "hmmm...how can we get more exposure on team events like this?"

The company is Stage, they make custom goggles and probably jumped at a co-brand with New Era. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZipperClub    39

Obscure but how do memorial patches work for umpires? Some have three in a 1x2 configuration and some are updated with 2x2. Do they have to iron these on in their hotel, or wait to swing through NYC for updated gear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, the admiral said:

In the big SFGiants58 concept thread I called the Rockies one of the all-around worst identities in pro sports. Anyone want to dispute this?

 

Eh.  "All-Around Worst" makes it harder, since so many teams deficient in one category do well in another (Angels, Diamondbacks, Marlins, Browns, Buccaneers, Kings).  Heck, I even think OKC's uniforms range from serviceable to pretty cool.  I think it could be argued that Colorado should be in the 110's at the worst.

 

sd-sp-padres-20161122

 

9767388-nfl-tennessee-titans-at-jacksonv

 

9981967-nhl-detroit-red-wings-at-tampa-b

 

658108878.0.jpg

 

And then there's plenty of more that are much less objective.  The Dolphins' new uniforms feel like the Padres of football to me as they sterilized their look and minimized their colors.

 

On 9/5/2017 at 4:04 PM, leopard88 said:

7985624280_e775c714dc_h.jpg

 

I was intrigued, so I read the descriptions under each.  I've never heard of these 1997 "Fun Birds".  Anyone have any information on the other birds that came out of this?  I can't find anything on them.

 

EDIT: I keep forgetting to discuss this.  Haven't seen anyone mention the Astros' Harvey patches.

 

detail-shot-of-the-houston-strong-patch-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leopard88    955
20 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

I was intrigued, so I read the descriptions under each.  I've never heard of these 1997 "Fun Birds".  Anyone have any information on the other birds that came out of this?  I can't find anything on them.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Which other birds are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill81361    88

 

22 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Which other birds are you referring to?

if you read the description under the photo, it says the Orioles created a "group of fun birds."  The Orioles did this for marketing to kids, and it's used for the 'Junior Orioles Dugout Club."

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/history/uniforms_logos.jsp

orioles_club_mascot_369x398-278x300.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leopard88    955
1 minute ago, Bill81361 said:

if you read the description under the photo, it says the Orioles created a "group of fun birds."  The Orioles did this for marketing to kids, and it's used for the 'Junior Orioles Dugout Club."

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/history/uniforms_logos.jsp

 

Ahh.  I don't think I've ever seen any other than the one posted . . . which I've never really liked, for the record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leopard88    955
47 minutes ago, Bill81361 said:



orioles_club_mascot_369x398-278x300.png

 

That's just the same bird buying snacks.  That's no evidence of a "group."  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCarthy    6,617
22 hours ago, the admiral said:

In the big SFGiants58 concept thread I called the Rockies one of the all-around worst identities in pro sports. Anyone want to dispute this?

 

No I want to agree with this. It's really bad. Here's why:

 

1. They're named after a giant mountain range and instead of going bold and strong and jagged maybe with their wordmark and cap logo they went with this whispy, thin font with holes in it and they're still using it unchanged all these years later. 

2. Their best color is completely absent from the home uniforms. I know the pinstripes are purple, but from 10 feet away they look black. They look 99% identical to the White Sox. If those two uniforms were animals they'd share enough DNA to successfully breed. 

3. their cap monogram is both the location and team name. I hate when teams do that. Pick one, preferably the location. I have my own ideas on how to do this: https://www.behance.net/gallery/34497699/Colorado-Rockies-Brand-Overhaul

4. That primary logo. WOOF. 

5. Purple and black may be the worst color scheme in sports. I was at Coors Field in 2011 trying to find a tshirt for a souvenir and they didn't have anything that wasn't butt ugly. I settled on a charcoal gray shirt with the logo faded out on the front because it was the least hideous thing in there.  They should just be the purple and white team and keep black to outlines and accents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSU151    2,410
6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

No I want to agree with this. It's really bad. Here's why:

 

3. their cap monogram is both the location and team name. I hate when teams do that. Pick one, preferably the location. I have my own ideas on how to do this: https://www.behance.net/gallery/34497699/Colorado-Rockies-Brand-Overhaul

 

 

Edit:  With all due respect, is having a C with some blobby/indistinguishable shape an intricate mountain design inside of it better than what they have?  If you think the purple pinstripes are bad from 10 feet away...there's no way anyone will make out a mountain in that hat logo from more than 5 feet away.  That secondary logo with the diamond, mountains, and baseball is pretty phenomenal...well done.

 

That C-mountain logo would probably be better for the Avs as a shoulder patch (re-colored) than the Avs' current C-dot/puck(?) logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill81361    88
5 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

That's just the same bird buying snacks.  That's no evidence of a "group."  :lol:

Did you expect they'd have different birds, or just the same bird in different poses? :D  It was the Orioles that said there was a "group."  That's "evidence" enough, whether you've seen them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leopard88    955
2 hours ago, Bill81361 said:

Did you expect they'd have different birds, or just the same bird in different poses? :D  It was the Orioles that said there was a "group."  That's "evidence" enough, whether you've seen them or not.

 

If I want to lawyer up on Peter Angelos, I'm lawyering up . . .and I don't have to pay anyone else to do it for me.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,235
6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

No I want to agree with this. It's really bad. Here's why:

 

1. They're named after a giant mountain range and instead of going bold and strong and jagged maybe with their wordmark and cap logo they went with this whispy, thin font with holes in it and they're still using it unchanged all these years later. 

2. Their best color is completely absent from the home uniforms. I know the pinstripes are purple, but from 10 feet away they look black. They look 99% identical to the White Sox. If those two uniforms were animals they'd share enough DNA to successfully breed. 

3. their cap monogram is both the location and team name. I hate when teams do that. Pick one, preferably the location. I have my own ideas on how to do this: https://www.behance.net/gallery/34497699/Colorado-Rockies-Brand-Overhaul

4. That primary logo. WOOF. 

5. Purple and black may be the worst color scheme in sports. I was at Coors Field in 2011 trying to find a tshirt for a souvenir and they didn't have anything that wasn't butt ugly. I settled on a charcoal gray shirt with the logo faded out on the front because it was the least hideous thing in there.  They should just be the purple and white team and keep black to outlines and accents. 

 

1. As a Blue Jackets fan, would you mind if the Rockies used Brothers too? I mean, it's bold, strong, and jagged. It seems like it's used on every other artisan-nonsense craft beer label. I talked in the SFGiants58 thread about trying to find a quintessentially "Denver" font but that might be it: something that looks carved or hewn and also associated with spending extra money on stuff.

 

2. correct

 

3. State flag C is too too close to the Cubs' C, can't do it

 

4. correct

 

5. It's not a bad color scheme, it just requires the right application more than others do. The Sacramento Kings looked good till the second or third round of tinkering (whenever they put the city on the homes and the nickname on the roads) and look good again now. The L.A. Kings had some good sweaters in purple and black. But the Ravens never seem to get it right, and Northwestern's addition of black doesn't work. Obviously, the Rockies apply it worst of all. It's a temperamental color scheme, I guess you'd say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,235
7 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

That's just the same bird buying snacks.  That's no evidence of a "group."  :lol:

 

2 hours ago, Bill81361 said:

Did you expect they'd have different birds, or just the same bird in different poses? :D  It was the Orioles that said there was a "group."  That's "evidence" enough, whether you've seen them or not.

 

Great moments in CCSLC arguing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSU151    2,410
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Northwestern's addition of black doesn't work. 

 

Interesting observation - I think Northwestern football was purple and black starting in '93, purple and white in '92, and purple/silver/white in late 80s-'91...would you rather have them be purple and white and purple or silver again?  Seems like the '94-95 black jerseys were popular (winning will do that, esp. for Northwestern), but other looks have failed.  I've never really thought the addition of black didn't work.  A black hat with a purple N outlined in white is a pretty decent hat, IMO.

 

 

 

The Rockies' black hats with the lighter/brighter purple jerseys seems to be a popular look...I have yet to see anyone that said "eww gross"...so purple and black can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the admiral    10,235

I guess my problem is that usually the addition of black has been to make a team seem scarier, edgier, or more serious. But it's Northwestern, an expensive private school that's not good at sports. Why bother?

I'd like to see straight-up purple and white. FUN FACT: the section of the Chicago L that runs through Evanston is called the Purple Line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el_gmac    20
On 9/11/2017 at 0:58 PM, Brandon9485 said:

 

And they must be big money makers since they always make the clearance sales on MLB Shop. Great way to get a team cap on the cheap though. 

Fanboys that rushes to pay retail, pays for the difference when they hit clearance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el_gmac    20
9 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

No I want to agree with this. It's really bad. Here's why:

 

1. They're named after a giant mountain range and instead of going bold and strong and jagged maybe with their wordmark and cap logo they went with this whispy, thin font with holes in it and they're still using it unchanged all these years later. 

2. Their best color is completely absent from the home uniforms. I know the pinstripes are purple, but from 10 feet away they look black. They look 99% identical to the White Sox. If those two uniforms were animals they'd share enough DNA to successfully breed. 

3. their cap monogram is both the location and team name. I hate when teams do that. Pick one, preferably the location. I have my own ideas on how to do this: https://www.behance.net/gallery/34497699/Colorado-Rockies-Brand-Overhaul

4. That primary logo. WOOF. 

5. Purple and black may be the worst color scheme in sports. I was at Coors Field in 2011 trying to find a tshirt for a souvenir and they didn't have anything that wasn't butt ugly. I settled on a charcoal gray shirt with the logo faded out on the front because it was the least hideous thing in there.  They should just be the purple and white team and keep black to outlines and accents. 

Love the mountains piping on the sleeves, cool concept 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now